coulter. a new book. thanks for being with us. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> both presidential candidates on the campaign trail. after last night's debate, president obama holding a campaign rally denver.

vice president biden campaigning in iowa. mitt romney and his campaign vice president paul ryan are campaigning together today in virginia. while in denver for last night's debate, we talked with some students about their views on the election. >> the issue for me has to do with women's rights. and rights for all women, not just wealthy women. and the supreme court will go a long way to make sure that those are secured for generations to come. >> i was interested in the economy. >> the biggest issue for me is getting a job after i'm done for school. i pay $55,000 a year to come here. i need a job to pay for that.

>> it's important to me to make sure i am able to get a job. >> there are many issues we need to focus on. >> video-based social media service similar to a tweet. last night's debate is the most tweeted event in history, topping this year's republican and democratic conventions. a look at last night's debate. the debate was held at the university of denver. it was spoke focusing on

domestic policy issues. we want to show you reaction from the candidates during the debate. it's about an hour and a half. >> i welcome you to the first of the 2012 presidential debates between president barack obama, the democratic nominee and former massachusetts governor, mitt romney, the republican nominee. this debate and the next three, two presidential, one vice-presidential, are sponsored by the commission on presidential debates. tonight's 90 minutes will be about domestic issues and will follow a format designed by the commission. there will be six, roughly

15-minute segments, with two-minute answers for the first question, then open discussion for the remainder of each segment. thousands of people offered suggestions on segment subjects or questions via the internet and other means. but i made the final selections. for the record, they were not submitted for approval to the commission per the candidates. the subjects, as i announce in advance, will be three on the economy, and one each on health care, the role of government, and government, with an emphasis throughout on differences, specifics, and choices. both candidates will also have two-minute closing statements. the audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent. no cheers, applause, boos, hisses, among other noisy distracting things, 0 -- so we may all concentrate on what the

candidates have to say. there is a noise exception now, though, as we welcome president obama and governor romney. [cheers and applause] [applause] >> welcome to you both. let's start the economy. let's begin with jobs. what are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs?

>> thank you very much. i want to thank the university of denver for your hospitality. there are a lo of -- lot of points i want to make. the first point i would like to make, is 20 years ago, i became the luckyest man on earth because michelle obama married me. i just want you to know, next year we will not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people. four years ago we went through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. many jobs were lost. the auto industry was on the brink of collapse. because of the resilience and determination of the american people, we have begun to fight our way back. over the last 30 months, we have seen five million jobs in the private sector created. the auto industry has come

roaring back. housing has begun to rise. the question tonight is not where we have been, but where we are going. governor romney has a perspective that says, if we cut taxes, skew toward the wealthy, and roll back regulations we will be better off. i have a different view. i think we have to invest in education and training. i think it is important for us to develop new sources of energy here in america, that we change our tax code to make sure we are helping small businesses and companies here in the united states. that we take some of the money we are saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild america, and that we reduce our deficit in a way that makes us ablet -- that makes it able for us to create critical investments. it is up to you. are we going to go from the top

down, which is what got us into this mess, or do we embrace the new economic patriotism that says america does best when the middle class does best? i'm looking forward to having that debate. >> governor romney. >> thank you, jim. i appreciate the chance to be with the president. appreciate the university of denver and their welcome. congratulations to you, mr. president, on your anniversary. i am sure this is the most dramatic place you could imagine, here with me. so congratulations. [laughter] this is a tender topic. i have had the occasion over the last several years meeting people across the country. i was in ohio and a woman grabbed my arm, and she said, i have been out of work since may. can you help me? yesterday was a rally in denver. a woman came up to my wife with a baby in her arms and said, my husband has had four part-time jobs in three years. we have just lost our home. can you help us?

the answer is yes, we can help. but it is going to take a different path. not the one we have been on, not the one the president describes as a top-down, cut taxes for the rich. that's not what i'm going to do. my plan has five basic parts. one, get us energy independent. that creates about four million jobs. number two, open up more trade, particularly in latin america. crack down on china if and when they cheat. number three, make sure our people have the skills to succeed and the best schools in the world. we are far away from that now. number four, get us to a balanced budget. champion small business. small business creates the jobs in america. over the past four years, small businesses have decided america may not be the place to start up new businesses because new business start-ups are down to an all-time low. i am concerned the path we are

on has been unsuccessful. the president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago. a bigger government spending more, taxing more, regulating more, if you would, trickle-down government, will work. it does not work. we would like to get america working again. thank you. >> please respond to what the governor just said about trickle down, the trickle-down approach that he just mentioned. >> first we have to improve our we are already starting to show gains in some of the toughest to deal with schools. we have a program called race to the top that has prompted reforms in 46 dates states around the country raising standards in how we train teachers. now i want to hire 100,000 new

math and science teachers and create two million more slots in our community colleges so people can get trained for the jobs out there right now. and i want to make sure we keep tuition low for our young people. when it comes to our tax code, governor romney and i both agree that our corporate tax rate is it too high. i want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking advantage of 25%. i also want to close those loopholes that are get -- giving incentives for companies shipping overseas. i want to provide tax rates for companies here in the united states. governor romney and i both agree that we have to boost american energy production, and oil and natural gas production are higher than they have been in years. but i also believe that we have to look at the energy source of the future, like wind, solar, and biofuels and make those investments. so all of this is possible.

in order for us to do it, we have to close our deficit. one of the things i'm sure we'll be discussing tonight is how do we deal with our tax code and how do we make sure we are reducing spending in a responsible way, but also how do we ensure we have enough revenue to make that work. this is a difference, because governor romney's plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of the bush tax cuts, so that's another $5 trillion, in addition to military spending that the military has not asked for. that's $8 trillion. how do we pay for that and make the investments we need to make without dumping those costs on to middle class americans, i think, is one of the central questions of this campaign. >> governor romney, do you have a question that you would like to ask the president directly about something he just said? >> sure. i would like to clear up the record and go through

piece-by-piece. first of all, i don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. i don't have a tax cut of the scale you are talking about. my belief is we should provide tax relief to the people in the middle class. i'm not going to increase taxes paid by high-income people. the people having a hard time right now -- i'm not going to reduce taxes paid by high-income americans. they don't need a tax cut. middle income americans have seen their income come down by $ 4,300. at the same time gasoline prices have doubled under the president. electric rates are up, food prices are up. health care costs have gone up $2,500 a family. middle income families are being crushed. the question is how to get them going again? balancing small business, those

are the corner stones of my plan. the president mentioned education. i agree education is key for particularly the future of our economy. but our training programs right now, we have 47 of them housed in the federal government reporting to eight different agencies. overhead is overwhelming. we have to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get them the training they really need or really help them. the second issue. taxes. we greeb agree we need -- we agree we need to bring tax rates down. i also lower deductions in credits and exemptions so we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth. the third area, energy. energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the u.s. is up. but not due to his policies, in spite of his policies. mr. president, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land,

not in government land. on government land your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. if i'm president, i'll double them. i'll also get the oil from off shore and alaska, and i'll bring that pipeline in from canada. and also coal. people in the coal industry feel like it is being crushed by your policies. i want to get america and north america energy independent so we can create those jobs. finally, with regard to that tax cut, look, i'm not willing to cut massive taxes and reduce the revenues going to the government. my number one principle is there will be no tax cut that adds to the government. i want to underline that. no tax cut that adds to the deficit. i want to reduce the burden being paid by middle income americans. to do that, that also means i cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income americans. any language to the contrary is not accurate.

>> let's talk about taxes, because i think it is instructive. four years ago when i stood on this stage i said i would cut taxes for middle class families. that's exactly what i did. we cut taxes for middle class families by about $33,600. -- by about $3,600. the reason is, i believe we do best when the middle class does well. and by giving them those tax ts, they have a little more money in their pocket so maybe they can buy a new car. they are certainly in a better position to weather the extraordinary recession we went through. they can buy a computer for their kid who is going off to college. it means they are spending more money, businesses have more profits and then hire more workers. now governor romney's proposal that he's been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of additional

spending for the military. he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and ducks. the problem is, that he's been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn't been able to identify them. i'm going to make an important point here, jim. when you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper income individuals can -- are currently taking advantage of, you take those all the way, you don't come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending. that's why governor romney's pledge by not reducing the deficit is by burdening the middle class. the average family with two children would pay $2,000 a year more. that's not my analysis.

that kind of top-down analysis where folks at the top make more so the average upper class earner is getting a tax cut to the middle class can pay more, that's not my opinion of a program that works. >> everything he said about my tax plan is inaccurate. if the tax plan he described were something someone offered, i would say absolutely not. i would say no tax cut -- i will not add to the deficit with my tax plan. i will not reduce the amount paid by high-income individuals. i know you and your running mate keep saying that, but it is not the case. look, i have five boys. i'm used to people saying

something that is not always true and just keep on repeating it and hoping i'll believe it. that is not the case. i will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income americans. number three, i will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle income families. i will lower taxes on middle income families. now, you referred to a study. there are six other studies that looked at the study you mentioned and says it is wrong. i saw a study that shows you will raise taxes on middle income families. there are all kinds of studies out there. i will bring down rates and lower deductions so we keep getting the revenue we need. you say why lower the rates? the reason is because small business pays that individual rate. 54% of america's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate but at the individual tax rate.

if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people. for me this is about jobs, this is about getting jobs for the american people. >> do you challenge what the governor just said about his own plan? >> well, he has been running on this tax plan. now five weeks before the election he is saying that his big bold idea is, never mind. the fact is, that if you are lowering the rates the way you describe, governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. it's not. it's arithmatic. now governor romney and i do share a deep interest in supporting small businesses. so at the same time while my tax plan has already lowered taxes for 98% of families, i also

lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times. and what i want to do is continue the tax cuts that we put in place for small businesses and families. but i have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year that we should go back to the rates we had when bill clinton was president when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole bunch of millionaires to boot. this is important because by doing that we can not only reduce the deficit, we can not only encourage job growth through small business, but we are also able to make the necessary changes in education and energy. we do have a difference when it comes to small businesses. under my plan, 98% of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. governor romney says, those top

3%, they would be burdened. under romney's version, donald trump is a small business. i know donald trump doesn't like to think of himself as a small anything, but that's how you define small business. that kind of approach i do not believe will grow our economy. the only way to pay for it without burdening the middle class or blowing up our budget is to make drastic cuts in things like education, making sure that we are continuing to invest in basic science and research, all the things helping america to grow. i think that would be a mistake. >> let me come back to that point. >> excuse me. just so everybody understands now, we are way over our first 15 minutes. >> it's ok. that's good. >> we're still on the economy.

we're going to come back to taxes. we want to move onto the deficit and a lot of other things, too. go ahead. >> you bet. mr. president, you are right. with regard to 97% of the businesses are not taxed at the 35% tax rate, they are taxed at a lower rate. but those businesses in the last 3% of businesses happen to employ half of all the people who work in small business. those are the businesses that employ one quarter of all the workers in america. your plan is to take their tax rate from 35% to 40%. now, i talked to a guy who has a very small business. he is in the electronics business in st. louis. he has 40 employees. he said he calculates how much they pay in taxes. state income tax, state sales tax, gasoline tax. it added up to well over 50% of what they earn. your plan is to take the tax rate on successful small businesses from 35% to 40%.

the national federation of independent businesses has said that will cost 700,000 jobs. i don't want to cost jobs. my priority is jobs. so what i do is i bring down the tax rates, lower the deductions and exemptions. the same idea behind simpson, by the way. lower the deductions and exemptions to create more jobs, because there is nothing better for getting us to a balanced budget than having more people working, earning more money, paying more taxes. that's by far the most effective way to get this budget balanced. >> you may want to move on to another topic, but i would say this to the american people. if you believe that we can cut taxes by $5 trillion and add $2 trillion in additional spending that the military is not asking for, $7 trillion, just to give you a sense, that's more than our entire defense budget, and you think that by closing

loopholes and deductions for the well-to-do somehow you will not end up picking up the tab, then governor romney's plan may work for you. but i think math, common sense, and our history shows us that's not a recipe for job growth. look, we have tried both approaches. the approach governor romney is talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003 and we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years. we ended up moving from surplus to deficits, and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the great depression. bill clinton did what i'm talking about. he created 23 million new jobs, we went from deficit to surplus, and small businesses did very

well. so in some way we have data on which plan is more likely to create jobs for americans, and i believe that the economy works best when middle class families are getting tax breaks so they have money in their pockets, and those of us who have done extraordinarily well because of this magnificent country that we live in, we can do a little more to make sure we're not blowing up the deficit. >> the president began this segment, so i think i get the last word. he gets the first word of the next segment, i get the last word of this segment. let me repeat what i said. i'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. that's not my plan. my plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. that's part one. you may keep referring to it as a $5 trillion dax tax cut, but that's not reply plan. number two, let's look at history. my plan is not like anything that's been tried before. my plan is to bring down rates but also bring down exemptions,

deductions, and credits at the same time. we bring down rates to get more people working. my priority is putting people back to work in america. they are suffering in this country. we talked about evidence. look at the evidence of the last four years. it is absolutely extraordinary. we have 23 million people out of work or have stopped looking for work in this country. when the president took office, 32 million people on food stamps, 47 million on food stamps today p. economic growth slower this year than last year, and last year slower than the year before. going on slow economic growth is not going to cut it for the american people who are struggling today. >> this is a second segment still on the economy, and specifically on what to do about the federal debt. the question, you each have two minutes on this. governor romney, you go first

because the president went first on segment one. the question is this, what is the difference between the two of you as to how you would go about tackle tackling the deficit? this country? >> i am glad you mentioned that. i think it is not just an economic issue, i think it is a moral issue. i think it is not moral to keep spending massively knowing the next generation will be taking that on and paying the interest and principle their entire lives. the & amount of deficit we are adding is simply not moral. how do we deal with it? math matcally there are three ways you can cut a deficit. one, of course, is to raise taxes. the other is to cut spending. the other is to grow the economy. if more people are at work in a growing economy, they are paying taxes, and you can get the job done that way. the president would prefer raising taxes. i understand. the problem with raising taxes is it slows down the rate of

growth, and you can never quite get the job done. i want to lower spending and encourage economic growth at the same time. what things would i cut from spending. first of all, i would eliminate all programs by this test if they don't pass it. is the program so critical it is worth borrowing money from china to pay for it? if not, it goes. obama care is on my list -- i apologize if i used that determine -- term -- >> it's ok. >> thanks. i'm not going to borrow money from china to pay for things. i will cut pbs. i will take programs that are currently good programs but i think would be more efficiently run at the state level. number three, i will make government more efficient and cut back the number of employees. i would cut back agencies and departments. my cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way. this is the approach we have to take.

the president said he would cut the deficit in half. unfortunately he doubled it. trillion dollar deficits for the last four years. the president has put us in almost as much debt held by the public as all former presidents combined. >> when i walked into the oval office, i had more than a trillion dollar debt. we know where it came from. two wars paid for on the credit card, two tax cuts not paid for, and a whole bunch of programs that were not paid for, and then a massive economic crisis. despite that, what we have said is, yes, we had to take initial emergency measures to make sure we didn't slip into a great depression. what we have also said is let's make sure we are cutting out those things not helping us grow. so 77 government programs, everything from aircrafts that the air force had ordered but weren't working very well, 18

government programs for education that were well intentioned but weren't helping kids learn. we went after medical fraud in medicare and medicaid very aggressively, more aggressively than ever before. and we have saved 10's of billions of dollars. 50 million in waste taken out of the program. i have worked with the federal government to cut a trillion dollars out of our domestic discretionary budget. that's the largest cut in the budget since dwight eisen hour. . .

when governor romney stood on a stage with other republican candidates for the nomination and he was asked, would you take $10 of spending cuts for just $1 of revenue? and he said no. now, if you take such an unbalanced approach, then that means you are going to be gutting our investments in schools and education. it means that governor romney talked about medicaid and how we could send it back to the states, but effectively this means a 30% cut in the primary

program we help for seniors who are in nursing homes, for kids who are with disabilities. >> mr. president, i'm sorry. >> that is not right strategy for us to move forward. >> governor, what about simpson- bowles? do you support simpson-bowles? >> simpson-bowles, the president should have grabbed that. >> no, i mean, do you support since the bulls? >> i have my own plan is not the same as simpson-bowles bid but the president should have grabbed it. if you wanted to make some adjustments to it, take it to congress -- >> that's what we have done. >> you've been president for four years. you said you'd cut the deficit in half. it's now four years later. we still have trillion dollar deficits. the cbo says we'll have a trillion dollar deficit each of the next four years. i love this idea of $4 trillion in cuts. you found $4 trillion ways to reduce or get close to a balanced budget, except we still

show trillion dollar deficits every year. let me come back and say, why is it that i don't want to raise taxes? why don't i want to raise taxes on people? actually, he said it back in 2010 to reduce said, "look, i'm going to extend the tax policies that we have now. i'm not going to raise taxes on anyone, because when the economy is growing slow like this, when we're in recession, you shouldn't raise taxes on anyone." the economy is still growing slow trade as a matter of fact, it's growing much more slowly. you mentioned donald trump it's not just donald trump you're taxing. it's all those businesses that employ one-quarter of the workers in america, these small businesses that are taxed as individuals. you raise taxes and you kill jobs. that's why the national federation of independent businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. all make one more point. >> answer the taxes thing for a

moment. >> ok. >> mr. president? >> we've had this discussion before. >> the idea that in order to reduce the deficit, there has to be revenue in addition to cuts. >> there has to be revenue in addition to cuts. governor romney has ruled out revenue. >> absolutely. the revenue i get is by more people working, getting higher pay, pay more taxes. the idea of taxing people more, putting more people out of work, you'll never get there. 42% of their total economy on government. we're now spending 42% of our economy on government. i don't want to go down the path to spain. i want to go down the path of growth that puts more americans to work with more money coming in thbecause they're working on it. >> mr. president, you're saying to get the job done, it's got to

be balanced. >> if we're serious, we've got to take a balanced, responsible approach. this is not just when it comes to individual taxes. let's talk about corporate taxes. now, i've identified areas where we can, right away, make a change that i believe would actually help the economy. the oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare. basically, they get deductions that those small businesses that governor romney refers to, they don't get. now, does anybody think that exxonmobil needs some extra money when they're making money every time you go to the pump? why would we want to eliminate that? -- why wouldn't we want to eliminate that? why wouldn't we eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets? my attitude is, if you've got a corporate jet, you can probably afford to pay full freight and not as special break for it. when it comes to corporate taxes, governor romney has said he wants to in a revenue neutral way close loopholes, deductions

-- he hasn't identified which ones they are -- but that thereby bring down the corporate rate. i want to do the same thing, but i've actually identified how we can do that. part of the way to do it is not to give tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. right now you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. i think most americans would say that doesn't make sense, and all that raises revenue. and so if we take a balanced approach, what that then allows us to do is also to help young people, the way we already have during my administration, make sure they can afford to go to college. it means that the teacher that i met in las vegas, a wonderful young lady, who describes to me -- she's got 42 kids in her class. the first two weeks, she's got some of them sitting on the floor until finally they get reassigned. they are using textbooks that are 10 years old. that is not a recipe for growth. that's not how america was built. and so budgets reflect choices.

ultimately, we are going to have to make some decisions. if we are asking for no revenue, and that means we've got to get rid of a whole bunch of stuff. and the magnitude of the tax cuts that you talking about, governor, would end up resulting in severe hardship for people, but more importantly, would not help us grow. as i indicated before, when you talk about shifting medicaid to states, we're talking about potentially a 30% cut in medicaid over time. now, you know, that may not seem like a big deal when it just is, you know, numbers on a sheet of paper, but if we're talking about a family who's got an autistic kid and is depending on that medicaid, that's a big problem. and governors are creative. there's no doubt about it. but they're not creative enough to make up for 30% of revenue on something like medicaid. one ends up happening is that some people end up not getting help.

>> jim, we've gone on a lot topics there, so it's going to take a minute to go from medicaid to schools to oil, to tax breaks, then companies going overseas. so let's go through them one by one. first of all, the department of energy has said tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. and it's actually an accounting treatment, as you know, that's been in place for a hundred years. >> it's time to end it. >> any one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. now, i like green energy as well, but that's about 50 year'' worth of oil and gas receives. and you say exxon and mobil -- actually, this $20 billion goes largely to small companies, drilling operators and so forth. but if we get that tax rate from 35% down to 25%, that $2.8 billion is on the table. that's probably not going to survive to get that rate to 25%. but don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into solar and wind, to

solyndra and faster and -- fisker and ener1. i mean, friends that you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers. this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get america energy secure. the second topic, which as you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. look, i've been in business for 25 years to have no idea what you're talking about. i maybe need to get a new account anant. but the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case. finally, medicaid to states? i'm not quite sure where that came in, except this, which is i would like to take the medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you're going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1%, and then you're going to manage your care for your poor the way you think best. i remember as governor, when this idea was floated by tommy thompson, the governors,

republican and democrats, said please let us do that. we can care for our own poor in so much better and more effective way than having the federal government tell us how to care for our poor. one of the magnificent things about this country is the whole idea that states are the laboratories of democracy. don't have the federal government tell everybody what kind of training programs they have to have an what kind of medicaid they have to have. let states do this. by the way, if a state gets in trouble, we can step in and see if we can find a way to help them. the right approach is one that relies on the billions of our people and states, not the federal government. >> still on the economy, but on another part of it. all right? all right, this is segment three, the economy. entitlements. first answer goes to you, two minutes, mr. president. do you see a major difference between the two of you on social security? >> you know, i suspect on social security we've got a somewhat similar position.

social security is structurally sound. it's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by ronald reagan and democratic speaker tip o'neill. but the basic structure is sound. but i want to talk about the values behind social security and medicare. and then talk about medicare, because that's the big driver of our deficits right now. you know, my grandmother -- some of you know -- helped to raise me. my grandparents did. my grandfather died a while back. my grandmother died three days before i was elected president. she was fiercely independent. she worked her way up only had a high-school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. and she ended up living alone by choice. and the reason she could be independent was because of social security and medicare. she had worked all her life, put in this money, and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go.

and that's the perspective i bring when i think about what's called entitlements. you know, the name itself implies some sort of dependency on the part of these folks. these are folks who've worked hard, like my grandmother, and there are millions of people out there who are counting on this. so my approach is to say, how do we strengthen the system over the long term? and in medicare, what we did was we said, we are going to have to bring down the costs if we're going to do with our long-term deficits. but to do that, let's look where some of the money's going. $716 billion we were able to save her from the medicare program by no longer overpaying insurance companies, by making sure we weren't overpaying providers. and using that money, we were actually able to lower prescription drug costs for seniors by an average of $600, and we were also able to make a significant dent in providing them the kind of preventive care that will ultimately save money throughout the system.

so the way for us to do with medicare in particular is to lower health-care costs. but when it comes to social security, as i said, you don't need a major structural change in order to make sure that social security is there for the future. >> will follow up on this. first, governor romney, you have two minutes on social security and entitlements. >> well, jim, our seniors depend on these programs, and i know anytime we talk about entitlements, people become concerned that something's got to happen that's going to change their life for the worse. the answer is neither the president nor i are proposing any changes for current retirees or near retirees, either to social security or medi-scare. so if you're 60 or run 60 or older, you don't need to listen any further. but for younger people, we need to talk about what changes are going to be occurring. all, i just thought about one bit that is, in fact, i was wrong when i said the president isn't proposing any changes for current retirees.

in fact, he is on medicare put on social security he's not. but on medicare, for current retirees, he's cutting $716 billion from the program. he says by not overpaying hospitals and providers. actually, just going to them and say, "were going to reduce the rates you get paid across the board, everybody's going to get a lower rate." that's not just going after places where there's abuse. that's saying we're cutting the rates. we have a 50% of doctors who say they won't take more medicare patients. we have a 4 million people on medicare advantage that will lose medicare advantage because of those $716 billion in cuts. i cannot understand how you can cut medicare $716 billion for current recipients of medicare. you point out, well, we're putting some back, we're going to get a better prescription program. that's $1 for every $15 you've cut. they're smart enough to know that's not a good trait. i want to take that $716 billion

you've cut and put it back into medicare. by the way, we can include a prescription program if we need to improve in. but the idea of cutting $716 billion from medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of obamacare is a mistake. and with regards to young people coming along, i've got proposals to make sure that medicare and social security are there for them without any question. >> first of all, i think i.t. is important for governor romney to present his plans to he says will only affect folks in the future. and the essence of the plan is that he would turn medicare into a voucher program. it's called premium support, but it's understood to be about the program. his running mate -- >> and you don't support that? >> i don't, and let me explain why -- >> again, that's for future -- >> i understand. if you're 5455, you might want to listen, because this will affect you. the idea, which was a originally

presented by congressman ryan, your running mate, is that we would give a voucher to seniors and they could go out in the private marketplace and buy their own health insurance. the problem is that because the voucher wouldn't necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that this would cost the average senior $6,000 a year. in fairness, what governor romney has now said is he'll maintain traditional medicare alongside it. but there's still problem, because what happens is, those insurance companies are pretty clever at figuring out who are the younger and healthier seniors. they recruit them, leaving the older, sicker seniors in medicare. and every health care economist that looks at it says over time will happen is the traditional medicare system will collapse. and then what you've got is folks like my grandmother at the mercy of the private insurance system precisely at the time when they are most in need of

decent health care. i don't think vouchers are the right way to go. and is not my own a pit -- only my opinion. aarp thinks that the savings we've obtained from medicare bolster the system, lengthen the medicare trust fund by eight years. benefits were not affected at all. and ironically, if you repeal obamacare, and i had become fond of this term, "obamacare" -- if you repeal it, what happens is those seniors right away are going to be paying $600 more in prescription care. they're now going to be paying copays for basic checkups that can make them healthier. and the primary beneficiary of that repeal are insurance companies that are estimated to gain billions of dollars back when they aren't making seniors any healthier. and i don't think that's the right approach when it comes to making sure that medicare is stronger over the long term.

>> will talk specifically about health care in a moment. do you support the voucher system, governor? >> what i support is no change for current retirees and near retirees to medicare appeared on the president supports taking $716 billion out of that program. that's number one. no. 2 is for people coming along that our young, i do to make sure that we keep medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current medicare program or private plan. their choice. they'll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them, so they don't have to pay additional money, no additional $6,000. by the way, if the government can be as efficient as the private sector and offer premiums that are as low as the private sector, people will be happy to get traditional medicare or they'll be able to get a private plan. i know my own view is i'd rather have a private plan. i'd just as soon not have the government telling me what can

of health care i get paid at rather be able to have an insurance company. if i don't like them, i can get rid of them and find a different insurance company. the other thing we have to do to save medicare? we have to have the benefits high for those that are low income, but for higher income people, we're going to have a lower some of the benefits. we have to make sure this program is there for the long term. that's the plan i put forward. by the way, the idea came not even from paul ryan or senator wyden, who's the co-author of the bill with paul ryan in the senate, but it came from bill clinton's chief of staff. this is an idea that's been around for a long time, which is saying, hey, let's see if we can get competition into the medicare world so that people who get the choice of different plans at lower cost, better quality. i believe in competition. >> jim, if i can just respond quickly, first of all, every study has shown that medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance does, which is why seniors are generally pretty happy with it. and private insurers have to

make a profit. nothing wrong with that. that's what they do. you have higher administrative costs, plus profit on top of that. and if you're going to save any money through what governor romney's proposing, what has happened is the money has to come from somewhere. and when you move to about a system, you are putting seniors at the mercy of those insurance companies. and over time, if traditional medicare has decayed or fallen apart, then they're stuck. and this is the reason why aarp has said that your plan would weaken medicare substantially. and that's why they were supportive of the approach that we talk. one last point i want to make. we do have to lower the cost of health care, not just in medicare and medicaid -- >> talk about that in a minute. >> but overall. >> that's a big topic. >> all i want to do is, very

quickly -- >> let's get back to medicare. the president said the government can provide the service at lower cost and without a profit. if that's the case, then it will always be the best product that people can purchase. my experience is that the private sector typically is able to provide a better product at lower cost. >> and the two of you agree that the borders of a clear choice on medicare? >> absolutely. >> absolutely. >> briefly, on the economy, what is your view about the level of a fed regulation of the economy right now? is there too much? in your case, mr. president, should there be more? this is not a new two-minute segment to start. will go for a few minutes and were going to go to health care, ok? >> regulation is essential did you cannot have a free market work if you don't have regulation. as a business person, i need to know the regulations, i needed them there. you cannot have people opening

up banks in their garage and making loans. you have to have regulations so you can have an economy work. every free economy has good regulation. at the same time, regulation can become excessive. >> is it excessive now, do you think? >> in some places, yes. other places, no credit it can become out of date. of what happened with some of the legislation that's been passed during the president's term, you've seen regulation become excessive. it's hurt the economy. dodd-frank has passed. . it includes within it a number of provisions that i think have unintended consequences that are harmful the to the economy. when is it designates a number banks that are too big to fail, and they're effectively guaranteed by the federal government. this is the biggest kiss that's been given to new york banks i've ever seen. there's been 122 community and small banks that have closed since dodd-frank. >> you want to repeal dodd- frank?

>> would repeal and replace it. we're not going to get rid of all regulation. there are some parts of dodd- frank that make all the sense in the world. you have to have transparency, you need to have leverage limits -- >> here's a specific -- let's mention the other one -- >> no, let's not kid let's have him respond to this specific on dodd-frank and what the governor just said. >> i think this is a great example. the reason we had been in such an enormous economic crisis was prompted by reckless behavior across the board. it wasn't just on wall street. you had loan officers who were given loans and mortgages that really shouldn't have been given, because the folks didn't qualify. you had people who were born money to buy a house that they couldn't afford. -- when money to buy a house that they couldn't afford. you had credit agencies that are standing these as great investments when they were

right. but you also had banks making money hand over fist churning out products that the bankers themselves didn't even understand in order to make big profits, but knowing that it made the entire system vulnerable. so what did we do? we stepped in and had the toughest reforms on wall street since the 1930's. we said, banks, you've got to raise your capital requirements. you cannot engage in some of this risky behavior that is putting main street at risk. we're going to make sure that you have got to have a living will so we can know that you're going to wind things down if you make a bad bet so we don't have other taxpayer bailouts. in the meantime, by the way, we also make sure that all the help of we provided those banks was paid back every single dime with interest. now, governor romney has said he wants to repeal dodd-frank. you know, i appreciate, and it appears we've got some agreement that a marketplace to work has to have some regulation. but in the past, governor romney

has said he just wants to repeal dodd frank, roll it back. the question is, does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of wall street? if you do, then governor romney is your candidate. but that's not what i believe. >> sorry, but that's just not the facts. look, we have to have regulation on wall street. that's why i have regulation. but i wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. that is one of the unintended consequences of dodd-frank. it wasn't thought through properly. we need to get rid of that provision because it's killing regional and small banks. they're getting hurt. let me mention another regulation in dodd-frank. you say we were giving mortgages to people who weren't qualified. that's exactly right. its one of the reasons for the great financial calamity we had. and so got frank correctly says we need to qualified mortgages, and if you give a mortgage that's not qualified, there are

big penalties. except they didn't ever go on and define what a qualified mortgage was. it's been two years. we don't know what qualified mortgage is yet. banks are reluctant to make loans, mortgages. try and get a mortgage these days. it's hurt the housing market because dodd-frank didn't anticipate putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have. it's not that dodd-frank always was wrong with too much regulation. sometimes they didn't come out with a clear regulation. i will make sure we don't hurt the functioning of our marketplace and our businesses, because i want to bring back housing and get good jobs. >> i think we have another clear difference between the two of you. now let's move to health care, where i know there's a clear difference, and that has to do with the affordable care act. minute, new segment, and that means two minutes each. and you go first, governor romney. you want it repealed. you want the affordable care act

repealed. why? >> i sure do. well, in part, it comes again from my experience. i was in new hampshire, and a woman came to me and he said, look, i cannotafford insurance for myself or my son. i met a couple in appleton, wisconsin, and they said, we think of dropping our insurance, we cannot afford it. the number of small businesses i've got to get some are saying they're dropping insurance because they cannot afford it -- because of health care is just prohibitive. unfortunately, when you look at obamacare, the congressional budget office says it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. it is adding to cost. when the president ran for office, he said that by this year he would brought down the cost of insurance for each family by $2,500 a family. instead, it's gone up by that amount. so it's expensive. expensive things hurt families. second reason, it cuts $716 billion from medicare to pay for it. i want to put that money back in

medicare for our seniors. number three, it puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. i don't like that idea. a surveyhere was done of small businesses across the country that said what's been the effect of obamacare on your hiring plans? three-quarters of them said it makes us less likely to hire people. i just don't know how the president could have come into office, facing 23 million people out of work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion for two years fighting for obamacare instead of fighting for jobs for the american people. it has killed jobs. and the best course for health care is to do what we did in my state, craft a plan at the state level that fits the needs of the state. and then let's focus on getting the costs down for people rather than raising it with the $2,500 annual premium -- additional premium.

>> mr. president, the argument against repeal? >> well, four years ago when i was running for office, i was traveling around and having those same conversations that governor romney talks about. smalln't just that businesses were seeing costs skyrocket and they couldn't get affordable coverage even if it wanted to providit to their employees. it wasn't just that this was the biggest driver of our effort toward deficit, our overall health care costs. but it was families who were worried about going bankrupt if they got sick, millions of the families all across the country. they had a pre-existing condition, they might not be able to get coverage at all. if they did have coverage, insurance companies might impose an arbitrary limit. and so as a consequence, they're paying their premiums. it's really sick, lo and behold, they don't have enough money to pay the bills. the insurance companies say that they've hit the limit. so we did work on this alongside working on jobs, because this is part of making sure that no

class families are secure in this country. and let me tell you exactly what obamacare did. number one, if you've got health insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover. you keep your own insurance, you keep your own doctor. but it does say insurance companies cannot jerk you around. they cannot impose arbitrary lifetime limits. they have to let you keep your kid on their insurance plan until -- on your insurance plan until you're 26 years old. it also says that you're going to have to get rebates if insurance companies are spending more on administrative costs and profits than they are on actual care. no. 2, if you don't have health insurance, we're essentially setting up a group plan that allows you to benefit from group rates that typically 18% lower than if you're out there trying to get insurance on the individual market. now, the last point i'd make before -- >> two minutes is up, sir.

>> no, i had five seconds before you interrupted me -- [laughter] the irony is that we've seen this model work really well in massachusetts, because governor romney did a good thing working with democrats in the state to set up what is essentially the identical model, and as a consequence, people are covered there. it hasn't destroyed jobs. and as a consequence, we now of the system in which we have the opportunity to start bringing down costs as opposed to just leaving millions the people out in the cold. >> your five seconds went away a long time ago. all right, governor, tell the president directly why you think what he just said is wrong about obamacare? >> well, i did with my for statement. -- my first statement.

first of all, i like the way we did in massachusetts. i like the fact that in my state, we had republicans and democrats come together and work together. what you did instead was to push through a plan without a single republican vote. when massachusetts did something quite extraordinary, elected a republican senator to stop obamacare, you pushed it through anyway. entirely on a partisan basis, instead of bringing america together and having a discussion on this important topic, you pushed through something that you at nancy pelosi and harry reid thought was the best answer and drove it through. what we did in a legislature 87 percent democrat, we worked together. 200 legislators in my legislature, only two voted against the plan by the time we were finished. we didn't raise taxes. you raise them by $1 to in order obamacare. we didn't put in place

a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive. we also didn't do something that i think a number people across this country recognize, which is put people in a position where they're going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted. right now, the cbo says that up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as obamacare goes into effect next year. likewise, a study by mckinsey and company of american businesses says 30% of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage. for those reasons, this is why the american people don't want medicare -- don't want obamacare. it's why republicans said, do not do this, and the republicans had a plan. they put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. it was swept aside. i think something this big, this important, has to be done on a bipartisan basis. and we have to have a president who can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation with input from both parties. >> governor romney said this has to be done on a bipartisan basis. this was a bipartisan idea. this was a republican idea.

governor romney at the beginning of this debate said that what we did in massachusetts could be a model for the nation. i agree that the democratic legislators and messages that might have given some advice to republicans in congress about how to cooperate. but the fact of the matter is we used to the same advisers and they say it's the same plan. when governor romney talks about this board, for example, unelected board that we've created, what this is is a group of health care experts, doctors, et cetera, to figure out how can we reduce the cost of care in the system or a brawl? -- in the system overall? because there are two ways of dealing with our health care crisis. one is to simply leave a whole bunch of people uninsured and let them fend for themselves. to let businesses figure out how long they can continue to pay premiums until finally they just give up and their workers are no

longer ensured, and that's been the trend line. or alternatively, we can figure out, how do we make the cost of care more effective? and there are ways of doing it. so i cleveland clinic, one of the best health care systems in the world, they actually provide great care cheaper than average. the reason they did is because they do some smart things. they say that if a patient's coming in, let's get all the doctors together at once, do one test instead of having the patient run around with 10 tests. let's make sure we're providing preventive care so we catch the onset of something like diabetes. let's pay providers on the basis of performance as opposed to on the basis of how many procedures they've engaged in. so what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let's use the purchasing power of medicare and medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do.

and the fact of the matter is, when obamacare is fully implemented, we're going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. and over the last two years, health care premiums have gone they've's true -- but gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. so we're already beginning to see progress. in the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you're already getting a rebate. let me make one last point. governor romney says we should replace it. i'm just going to repeal it, but we can replace it with something. but the problem is, he has to describe exactly -- what exactly we'd replace it with, other than saying we're going to leave it to the states. the fact of the matter is that some of the prescriptions that he's offered, like letting you buy insurance across state lines, there's no indication that that somehow is you to help somebody who's got a pre- existing condition be able to finally buy insurance. in fact, it's estimated that by repealing obamacare, you're

looking at 50 million people losing health insurance at a time when it's vitally important. >> let's let the governor explain what you do if obamacare is repealed. how would you replace it? >> well, actually, it's a lengthy description, but number one, preexisting conditions are covered under my plan. number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. that's already offered in the private marketplace. you don't have to let the government mandate that for that to occur. but let's come back to something the president and i agree on, which is the key task we have in health care is to get the cost down so it's more affordable for families. and that he has as a model for doing that a board of people at the government, an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what country and you ought to have. in my opinion, the government is not effective in bringing down the cost of almost anything. as a matter of fact, free people and free enterprises try to find

ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the cost than the government will ever be. your example of the cleveland clinic is my case in point, along with several others i could describe. this is the private market. these are enterprises competing with each other, learning how to do better and better jobs. i used to consult to businesses -- excuse me, to hospitals and health-care providers. i was astonished at the creativity and innovation that exists in the american people. in order to bring the cost of health care down, we don't have to have a board of 15 people telling us what kinds of treatments we should have. we instead need to put insurance plans, providers, hospitals, doctors on target such that they have an incentive, as you say, performance pay, for doing an excellent job, for keeping costs down. mayo clinic is doing its to probably well -- it superbly well, cleveland clinic, others.

the right answer is not to have the federal government take over health care and start mandating to the providers across america, patient and doctor what kind of human daypack. the private market and individual responsibility always work best. >> first of all, this board that we're talking about cannot make decisions about what treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated, that under his plan, he would be able to cover people with pre- existing conditions. that isn't what your plan does. what your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law, which is that if you are out of health insurance for three months, then you can end up in getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can deny you if it's been under 90 days.

-- cannot deny you if it's been under 90 days. but that's already the law, and that doesn't help them and the people out there with preexisting editions. -- the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. there's a reason why governor romney set up the plan he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government takeover of health care. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that, insurers, you've got to take everybody. that also means you've got more customers. but when governor romney says he'll replace it with something but cannot detail how it will be replaced and the reason he set up the system he did in massachusetts is because there isn't a better way of dealing with the preexisting conditions problem. it reminds me of, he says he's going to close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan. that's how it's going to be paid for, but we don't know the details. he says he is going to replace dodd-frank, wall street reform, but we don't know exactly which ones. he will tell us.

he now says he's going to replace obamacare and ensure that all the good things that are in it are going to be in their and you don't have to worry. and at some point, i think the american people have to ask themselves, is the reason that governor romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they're too good? is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them? now, the reason is because when we reform wall street, when we tackle the problem of pre- existing conditions, then, you know, these are tough problems and we've gotta make choices. and the choices we've made have been ones that are ultimately benefiting middle-class of across the country. >> we're going to move to -- >> no, i have to respond to that. my experience as governor is if i come in and lay down a piece of legislation and say, it's my

way or the highway, i don't get a lot done. what i do is the same way that tip o'neill and ronald reagan worked out together some years ago. when ronald reagan ran for office, he laid out the principles that he was my to foster. he said he was going to lower tax rates. he said he was going to broaden the base. you said the same thing, you are going to simplify the tax code and broaden the base. those are my principles. i'm going to work together with congress is to say, ok, what are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? one way, for instance, would be to have a single number. make up a number. $50,000. anybody can have deductions up to that amount. one could follow bowles-simpson as a model and take deduction by deduction and make differences that way. there are alternatives to accomplish the objective i have, which is to bring down rates, broaden the base, simplify the code, and create incentives for growth. with regards to health care, you had remarkable details with a request to my pre-existing

condition plan. you obviously studied up on my plan. in fact, i do have a plan that deals with people with pre- existing conditions. and what we did in massachusetts is a model for the nation state by state. i said that at that time. the federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for america to have a stronger, more vibrant economy. >> that is a terrific segue to our next segment, and is the role of government. let's see. role of government. -- you are first on this, mr. president. and the question is this. do you believe, both of you -- but you have the first two minutes on this, mr. president -- do you believe there's a final defense between the two of you as to how you view the mission of the federal government? a fun -- a metal difference between the two of you as to how you view the mission of the

federal government? >> i definitely think there are differences. the first role of the four government is to keep the american people safe. functions most basic to it as commander-in-chief, that's something i've worked on and thought about every single day i've been in the oval office. but i also believe that government has the capacity, the federal government has the capacity, to help open up opportunity and create a leaders -- ladders of opportunity and to create frameworks where the american people can succeed. look, the genius of america is the free enterprise system and freedom and the fact that people can go out there and start a business, work on an idea, make their own decisions. but as abraham lincoln understood, there are also some things we do better together. so in the middle of the civil war, abraham lincoln said, let's help to finance the transcontinental railroad, let's start the national academy of sciences, let's start land grant

colleges, because we want to give these gateways of opportunity for all americans because of all americans are getting opportunity, we're all going to be better off. that doesn't restrict people's freedom. that enhances it. what i have tried to do as president is to apply this same principles. when it comes to education, what i've said is we've got to reform schools that are not working. we use something called race to the top. it wasn't a top-down approach, governor. what we said to states, will give you more money if you initiate reforms. as a consequence, you have 46 states around the country to have made a real difference. but webb also said is -- what i have also said is let's hire another 100,000 math and science teachers to make sure we maintain our technological lead and our people are skilled and are able to succeed. and hard-pressed states right now cannot all do that. we've seen layoffs of hundreds

of thousands of teachers over the last several years, and governor romney doesn't need more teachers. i do. i think that is the kind of and is and where the federal government can help. -- kind of investment where the federal government can help. it cannot do it all, but it will make a difference. that will create jobs because companies want to locate in places where we've got a skilled workforce. >> 2 minutes, governor, on the role of government. >> first, i love great schools. massachusetts, our schools are ranked number one of all 50 states. the key to great schools, great teachers. i reject the idea that i don't believe in great teachers or more teachers. every school district in every state should make their decision on their own. the role of government -- look behind us. the constitution and the declaration of independence. the role of government is about to protect the principles of those documents. first, life and liberty. we have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties

of our people, and that means a military second to none. i do not believe in cutting our military. i believe in maintaining the strength of america's military. second, that line that says we are endowed by our creator with the rights. i believe he must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. that statement also says we are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. i interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and cannot care for themselves are cared for by one another. we are a nation that believes we are children of the same god and we care for those who have difficulties, those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled. we care for them, and we look for discovery and innovation. all these things desired out of the american heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens. but we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. what we're seeing right now is,

in my view, a trickle-down government approach which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. and it's not working. and the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. the proof of that is one out of six people in poverty. the proof of that is that we've gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. the proof of that is that 50% of college graduates this year cannot find work. we know that the path we're taking is not working. it's time for a new path. >> let's go through some specifics in terms of what each of you views the role of government. education. does the federal government have responsibility to improve their quality of public education in america? >> well, the primary responsibility for education is that the state and local level. but the federal government can play a very important role. i agree with secretary arne duncan said -- and i guess he's

put forward on race to the top. not all of them, but some of them i agree with. congratulate him for pursuing that. i happen to believe that i want the kids that are getting federal dollars from idea or title 1, disabled kids or low- income kids, rather, i want them to be able to go to the school of their choice. so all federal funds, instead of going to the state with the school district, i'd have note to follow the child and let the parent and child decide where to send their student. >> how do you see the federal government's responsibility to improve the quality of public education in this country? >> i think it has a significant role to play. through our race to the top program, we've worked with republican and democratic governors to implement major reforms. >> do you think you have a difference with your views and those of governor romney about education and the federal government? >> this is where budgets matter because budgets reflect choices.

when governor romney indicates that he wants to cut taxes and potentially benefit folks like me and him, and to pay for it we're having to initiate significant cuts in federal support for education, that makes a difference. you know, his running mate, congressman ryan, put forward a budget that reflects many of the principles that governor romney's talked about. it wasn't very detailed. this seems to be a trend. but what it did do is if you extrapolated how much money we're talking about, you'd look at cutting the education budget by up to 20%. when it comes to community colleges, we're seeing great work done out there all over the country because we have the opportunity to train people for jobs that exist right now. one of the things that i suspect governor romney and i probably agree on is getting businesses to work with community colleges so that they're setting up training programs --

>> to you agree, governor? >> let me just finish the point. they're partnering so that -- they're designing training programs and people who are going through them know that there's a job waiting for them if they complete it. that makes a big difference, but that requires some federal support. let me just say one final example. when it comes to making college affordable, whether it's two- year or four year, one of the things that i did as president was we were sending $60 billion to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program, even of the loans were guaranteed. there is no risk for the banks or lenders, but they were taking billions out of the system. we said, why not cut out the middleman? as a consequence, we've been able to provide millions more students assistance, lower or keep low interest rates on student loans. and this is an example of where our priorities make a

difference. governor romney, i genuinely believe cares about education. but when he tells students that you should borrow money from your parents to go to college, you know, that indicates the degree to which, you know, there may not be as much of a focus on the fact that folks like myself, folks like michelle, kids who probably attended university of denver, just don't have that option could for us to be able to make sure they've got that opportunity and they can walk that door, that is vitally important not just to those kids. it is how we are going to grow this economy of a long-term trade. >> running out of time, german tr -- gentlemen. >> mr. president, you're entitled as president to your own airplane and your own house, but not your own facts. i'm not going to cut education funding. i don't have any plan to cut

education funding and grants that go to people going to college. but you make a very good point, which is that the place you put your money makes it pretty clear indication of where your heart is. you put $90 billion into green jobs. i am all in favor of green energy. $90 billion would have hired 2 million teachers. $90 billion. and these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, i think about half of them of the ones that been invested in have gone out of business. a number of them happened to be on by people who were contributors to your campaigns. the right course for america's government -- we were talking about the role of government -- is not to become the economic player, picking winners and losers, lling people what kind of health treatment they can receive, taking over the health- care system that has existed in this country for a long, long time and has produced the bulk health records and the world. the right answer is for government to say, how do we make the private sector more efficient and more effective?

how do we get schools to be more competitive? let's >. i propose we grade our schools so parents know which schools are succeeding and failing, so they can take their child to a school that's being more successful. i do not want to cut our commitment to education. i want to make it more effective and efficient. by the way, i had that experience. i don't just talk about it. i've been here. massachusetts schools are ranked no. 1 in the nation. it's not because i didn't have commitment to education. it's because i care about education for all our kids. barely three minutes left. i'm not going to grade the two of you and say your answers have been too long or i've done a poor job -- >> you've done a great job. >> oh, well, now. but the fact is, the role of government and governing -- we've lost a pod, in other words. we only have three minutes left in the debate before we go to your closing statements. i want to ask finally here, and

remember, we've got three minutes total time here -- the question is this. many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis as a result of partisan gridlock. if elected -- reelected, in your case -- would you do about that? governor? >> jim, i had a great experience -- it didn't it seem like it at the time -- of being elected in a state where my legislature was 87 percent democrat. that meant i figured out from the one i had to get along and i had a work request the aisle -- >> what would you do as president? >> as president, i will sit down on day one -- actually, the day after i get elected -- i will sit down with democratic leaders as well as republican leaders and continue -- as we did in my state -- we met every monday for a couple of hours. we have to work on a

collaborative basis, not because we're going to compromise our principle, but because there's common ground trade, the reason i am in this race is because there are people who are really hurting in this country. this deficit could crush the future generations. what's happening in the middle east -- there are developments around googled there a -- are on the world that are of real concern. republicans and democrats both love america, but we need to have leadership in washington that will actually bring people together and get that job done and could not care less if it is a republican or democrat. i've done it before. i will do it again. >> governor romney will have a busy first day, because he's also going to repeal obamacare, which will not be popular with democrats as you're sitting down with them. look, my philosophy has been, i will take ideas from anybody, democrat or republican, as long as they're advancing the cause of making middle-class families stronger and giving ladders of opportunity to the middle class. that is how we cut taxes for

middle-class families and small businesses. that's how we cut a trillion dollars of spending that wasn't advancing that cause. that is how we signed three trade deals into law that are helping us to double our exports and sell more american products around the world. that is how we repealed don't ask don't tell. that is how we ended the war in iraq, as i promised, and that is how we wind down the war in afghanistan. that is how we went after al qaeda and bin laden. we have seen progress even under republican control of the house of representatives. but ultimately, part of being principled, part of being a leader, is being able to describe exactly what it is intended to, not just saying "i'll sit down," but you have to have a plan. no. 2, what is important is that occasionally you have to say no, to folks both in your own party and the other party. we have had some fights between me and the republicans when they

fought back against us reining in the excesses of wall street? absolutely, because that was a fight that needed to be had. when we were fighting about whether or not we were quick to make sure that americans had more security with their health insurance, and they said no, yes, that was a fight we need to have. part of leadership and governing is both saying what it is that you are for, but also being willing to say no to something straight out to tell you, governor romney, when it comes to his own party in the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party. >> that brings us to closing statements. it was a coin toss. governor romney, you won the toss, and you elected to go last, so you have a closing two minutes, mr. president. >> jim, i want to thank you, and i want thank governor romney, because i think this was a terrific debate, and i very much appreciate it. i want to thank the university of denver. four years ago, we were going

through major crisis. and yet my faith and confidence in the american future is undiminished. and the reason is because of its people, because of a woman i met in north carolina who decided at 55 to go back to school because she wanted to inspire her daughter and, as a job in that new trading -- from that new training she has gotten to it because the company in minnesota was willing to give up salaries and perks for executives to make sure they didn't lay off workers during the recession. the autoworkers' that you meet in toledo or detroit take such pride in building the best cars in the world, not just because of a paycheck, but because it gives a sense of pride that they are helping to build america. the question is how do we build on those strengths? developing american energy or making sure we are closing loopholes for companies that are

shipping jobs overseas and focusing on small businesses creating jobs in the u.s. or closing our deficit in a responsible way that allows us to invest in our future. for all those things are designed to make sure that the american people, their genius, their grit and determination is channeled and they have an opportunity to succeed. everybody is getting a fair shot at a fair share and playing by the same rules. four years ago i said i'm not a perfect man and would not be a perfect president. that's probably a promise governor romney things i have kept. but i also promised i would fight every single day on behalf of the american people, the middle class as well, and all those striving to get into the middle class. i have kept that promise. if you will vote for me, if i promise i will fight just as hard in the second term. >> governor romney? >> thank you, jim, and mr.

president, and thank you for tune in this evening. i'm concerned about the american -- about the direction america has taken over the last four years. i know this is bigger than the two of us and our respective parties. if it's about what kind of america and you want to have for yourself and your children. there are two different paths that we began speaking about this evening. we will have to deal more presidential debates. they lead in different directions. it's not just looking into our words. you can look at the record. there's no question that if the president were to be reelected, you would continue to see the middle class squeezed. i will get in comes up again. you will see chronic unemployment. we have had 43 straight months with unemployment above 8%. i will help create 12 million

new jobs in this country with rising incomes. obamacare would be fully installed if the president were reelected. that would mean a different way of life for people who counted on the insurance plan they had in the past. many will lose it. health premiums would go up over to thousand dollars per family. if i'm elected, we will put in place the kind of principles i've put in place in my own state and allow each state to grant their own program to get people in shorts and we will focus on getting the cost of health care down. if the president were reelected, you see a $715 billion cut to medicare. 4 million people lose medicare advantage. hospitals and providers would no longer accept medicare payments. i will restore the $716 billion to medicare. finally, military. the president and would cause a dramatic cuts to are

military. i will keep america strong and get america's middle class working again. >> thank you. the next debate will be the vice-presidential event on thursday, october 11 and center college in danville, ky. for now, from the university of denver, jim lehrer. thank you and good night. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> both presidential candidates back on the campaign trail today. the president told in a campaign rally shortly in denver. we will have live coverage at 12:20 eastern on c-span, followed by your phone calls.

vice president biden's campaign in iowa today. mitt romney and his running mate paul ryan are campaigning together today. we will have live coverage of their stock in virginia rallying at a country music concert at 6:45 eastern on c-span, and your reaction. now look at some of the reaction in the spin room to last night's date. >> why would the president not more aggressive? >> the president did exactly what he had to do. talking to the american people about where we are going and what we are doing moving forward. he was clear. he gave specifics about jobs and the economy, about medicare, things that matter to the american public's. that's why we had a good debate. >> [indiscernible] [inaudible] >> governor romney has no plan.

he would balloon the debt. it's important for folks to understand. >> would you say that the president was too low-key? >> not at all. [indiscernible] [inaudible]

>> i think governor romney will continue to struggle to defend its position on these issues. >> some say that obama pose foreign-policy is diminishing. >> absolutely not. we will have that discussion. >> [indiscernible] >> it's going to be a close race. we have said that from the first

day. we will go on campaigning with the next to debates. you saw mitt romney continuing to try to defend it himself on issues that have been problematic for him in the battleground states. >> who do you think won the debate? >> the president, clearly. talking on taxes, jobs, medicare, we are on the right side of those issues and mr. romney continues to be on the defense. romney was testy. >> they did not mention the 47%. >> that was not a deliberate decision from the romney campaign -- from the obama campaign not to mention that.

what is important is you are sitting on your couch in denver or des moines or charlotte and listening to the clear difference between the two candidates and that's what you got tonight and that's what will be good for the president. >> [indiscernible] >> i think we have continued to lay out a clear vision on how to move this country fort. >> what will the schedule before the republicans? and what about ohio? >> we feel great about ohio. be aalways going to

battleground state. we will continue to go there. i think that will be difficult for romney. >> he supports medicare vouchers. he thinks we can add $7 trillion to the debt before we even get to our debt problem that now exists. i think people are smarter. i think governor romney plays the american people cheap. i think his problems were clear. >> [inaudible] -- drone strikes? >> we will have a foreign policy debate on this.

>> [inaudible]

>> romney will not share the details with the american people because the numbers don't add up.

>> romney hood's plan is impossible and will eventually punished the middle class in this country. plan.ey 's >> i was incurred. this was a strong performance for governor romney. he was very assertive and had a high level of energy. i spot the president was flat and had a hard time defending some of its policies. this will be the kind of debate that resets the campaign. we will see a very different tomorrow for the campaigns as far as public opinion. people saw the governor for the first time tonight could not help going away his ability to communicate his knowledge, i think. there were some great lines in the debate. romney's lied about president obama picking mostly losers, that was a good line and probably will get some play.

i thought the governor tonight touched a lot of areas in terms of things that he would do if elected president, to address the major challenges facing the country. he had answers. i thought the president focused more on excuses for why this had not been done. oftentimes you have to dead people and not by what they say but by what they do. we talk about energy and tax reform. -- oftentimes you have to judge people not by what they say but by what they do. i think that my guess is this should really not reenergize the

romney campaign. i think the obama campaign is probably not going to come away from this feeling very encouraged. i suspect the next debate he will be better prepared and more on task. tonight the kind of got it taken to him. governor romney really crushed him tonight. thisill be a good thing for the romney campaign. we will see what the next few weeks will hold. it's always nice when the candidate gets to deliver a message unfiltered. there have been attack ads on television. things the obama administration has said about him. this was his opportunity to speak directly to the american people. i thought that he communicated very clearly and effectively and in a way that i think will be -- get a favorable reception from those people watching who

perhaps had not made up their mind on who to vote for. >> i have never seen an incumbent president come into a debate with the stakes so high and looking so flat. he was meandering, boring, he had no vision, no passion. the president had no heart. it was an unbelievably bad performance by the presidents and an unbelievably great performance by mitt romney. >> will conservative republicans be enthusiastic after tonight? cracks are not only think -- >> i not only think the train is on the rail, but this thing is ready to go. we are ready for this debate for the american people. >> what was your favorite exchange? >> honestly, just the

preparedness of mitt romney. how prepared mitt was tonight on every single question. and not letting the president lie over and over again about this fair share garbage from president obama, not letting him lie of tha -- that issue was important. i loved what romney said about your not entitled to your own facts. after 90 minutes of going back to the same lines over and over again. i think the president is entitled to his airplane and his own house, but not entitled to his own facts. >> i wonder whether -- how well do you think the structure of

the debate was with jim lehrer? >> this is a the form of the candidates agreed to. i thought jim lehrer did a nice job tonight. i think he kept things very easily. it was an almost honest conversation between our president and our nominee. listen, it was an unbelievably bad performance by this president. i don't know if he left his heart in washington, but he did not bring it to denver, that's for sure. >> vice-presidential debate next week and clinton and -- and romney and obama will debate next tuesday on october 16 at hofstra university in new york. the final face-off on foreign affairs is october 22 at lynn university in florida. will have live coverage of both

of those debates on c-span. we will take you to denver where president obama has a campaign rally after last night's debate. the first of two rallies today. some of the original speakers before the president arrives. the crowd has gathered. the president has yet to arrive. . spec him to begin speaking around 12:05 eastern. we will follow that with your phone calls and reaction. up next, the immediate impact of last night's debates on charlie cook. he spoke this morning with republican and democratic pollsters. we will show as much of this as we can until the president arrives in denver after 12:00. >> if i could walk on water, it must be pretty thick. anyway, thank you all for coming.

if i am one of the most respected, that is a low bar in this town. greg and i have been friends close to 30 years. this relationship with united technologies has been great. in this room, you guys in prince william county and they are in prince george's county. anyway, thank you all for coming. this is a quick reaction, because i want to get to glen, because they are two of the best pollsters in the business. their firms are the nordstroms of their respective sides of the aisle, very large and incredibly well regarded and longtime good friends. so i want to have plenty of time

with those guys. just some quick reaction to what happened last night. unfortunately, i had to do a column that i had to hand in yesterday morning before the debate. it's not coming out until friday, although i just got an e-mail from my editor charlie, who suggested to a tweet it's a little bit now, after yesterday. i'm not sure what they will end up doing with it. the point i tried to make is, unfortunately, everybody tries to make everything by neary. arrays is either too close to call or its over -- a race is either too close to call or it's over. clearly, president obama was ahead. something that was more durable in the swing states than in the

national numbers. governor romney desperately needed to shake up this race. something had to change the trajectory in this election and it needed to be something very, very substantial. and so, here we are now with a momentous event and it was in the realm of debate. this is much more decisive than pretty much any other debate that any of us can remember, i think. i thought governor romney did a fabulous stops on a relative basis. and on a nominal basis, in other words, any standard, he did very well. i think it's true to say that president obama is a superior or store -- superior orator and

mitt romney is a better debater. we saw something we had not seen in a long time. it occurred to me that this reminded me more of the mitt romney i met in 1994 when he was running for the senate and came by and met with me and stew and was incredibly impressive and analytical and fact-driven and very pragmatic. this was that guy, not so much the person who had pretended to be an ideal of the last few years. idealogue. obama did not seem to be terribly hungry. i would not say smug. there's no question -- and i'm

not really big on the instant polls, but on the cnn opinion research corp., who did the best job? obama, 25%, romney with 67%. who did better than expected? obama did better than expected, 21%. 82% said romney did better than expected. 10% said they thought he did worse than they expected. my guess is that an% were partisan-- that 10% were partisans. and i read that romney had a good night, but no evidence of change in the game. we will have to wait a couple days whether it changed the game.

walmart sponsored focus groups with a democratic polling firm and others and it suggested that among walmart moms, it was a win for romney. the people in the group were divided between a win for romney or a tie. it says they were disappointed with the president's performance. they don't believe he made the case for our and other four years would be different or better. but it made the point that neither one of these guys really connected with voters on a personal level, but clearly the romney did a superior job of debating. so we will see a lot of reviews over the next few days. i think the key thing for us to watch is there's no question romney won the debate. the question is how much does this change things?

in terms of national polls, he's going to get a few points out of this. but the more relevant points, does the move ohio and does he moved the swing voters in the swing states? because that is what is really relevant. i have no idea. my view over the last few weeks has come to be that, you show me an undecided voter in a swing state like ohio and they have been bombarded by eds since june -- by ads and the undecided over there at were a lot smaller than nationally, and i had sort of concluded that if you are in ohio and you are still undecided, that you may never decide. [laughter] and you are probably not going to vote.

there may be something wrong with you anyway. [laughter] i am not being dismissive, but the thing about it is we should be careful about imposing -- as everybody that's watching this on c-span, they will all be very attentive people. and we are watching and paying a lot of attention to this. we just probably need to be a little careful about how some pretty passive people who don't like politics or politicians, who are very cynical and skeptical, whether their reactions will be exactly the same as ours. this is a consequential event. without any hesitation i say this, had this gone the other way, had mitt romney not done well, i think this would of been over.

i think republicans were starting to get nervous. i think you were on the verge of seeing a lot of money for republicans to make absolutely sure to make a desperate push to get every possible senate seat and control because the romney thing is not going to happen. that is what was about to happen had romney turned in a poor performance. not only did he escape that company turned into an extremely strong one and the president was flat. the question is howthe questions this move in ohio, virginia, florida, colorado, these swing states. we will have a great discussion at you will hear from two of the smartest people in the business, but we need to -- we could talk

about this and discuss it, but sort of looked at the polls -- tonight is thursday, friday, saturday about art -- start looking polls next week, when you get full samples in, all after the debate. after people have had conversations in the supermarket aisles and see where this is, but clearly this is a game- changing event. how much does it change sweepstakes are what matters. i think we will have a lot of fun just with a hunch. i do not think even yester day aboard the debate in our view the house was not in play. democrats were going to get -- somewhere -- they needed 25

seats to take a majority and it was going to be somewhere between an wash and republicans losing, democrats picking up 10 seats. there is no evidence whatsoever that this was heading toward 15 cannot 20, 25 seats, especially in when you consider it the democrats and the seats that they will lose. it did not look that bad, and today for republicans, it does not look like that now in the aftermath of that debate. the senate -- public what prediction. i think there is a very fair chance that on say, new kabul on wednesday, the day after the election, we may not know who is going to be in the majority, because we're looking at 10 tossup races, and a lot of these are two-point races.

it makes my colleague who pointed out when this class of senate seats was last up in 2006, we had three states, montana, missouri, and virginia, 4.8 million people voted total in those states, and those states and races and the majority status of the u.s. senate where decided by 66,600 votes out of 4.8 million. it is hanging by a thread, and that is how close it was, and frankly i think there are 5, 6, seven races that could be decided --. number -- 100,000 votes total nationwide that would get control not only of the senate, but by several seat margins one

way or another. there is an enormous amount of volatility in the senate pictured. we will see how it plays out. we would just jump up there, right? why don't you join me and we will have fun, and i will ask that a handful of questions and we will open up to the audience and let you guys ask questions and have a great morning. bulger, you're on my left. awesome. anyway, thank you for journey us, because i know you are incredibly busy, and, fred, how many races are you working on right now >? >> one at a time. >> a ball park?

>> 15 to 20. >> your firm is set up differently? >> a lot. >> these guys are seeing an enormous amount of data every weekend, and let's not put fred on the spot, but it was not a good night. quickly, what was your reaction to last night and we will launch into what it means. >> first of all, a yankees fan rugby fan, it was a good night. that you to "national journal" for having us today. i am a huge fan of the jet engines, particularly when they work. i am still here said that as a good sign.

i think the two factors from last night are how much did it romney hope his image -- help his image cannot raise his favorable supply of the bigger gap was not in the vote. we have shown a number, two, three points, it was in the favorability as the candidate, and run the camp across more genuine as people realize. this guy could step into the oval office and had no problems. i am not sure if any other republican running in the primaries would have been able to pull that off last night. i am being generous. the other factor is, and we will not know this, what i wonder is, we do our dialing between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. at night. on the east coast and midwest,

how deep you do a national poll and you are dialing at 10:30 on the east coast when everybody is going to bed, unless they are really sick and staying up and watch the post-debate discussions. i did not even do that. had to get up early. the question is among undecideds, and decide it's in the campaign, the first decision is, do i want to vote for obama, the guy in charge for the last four years? if they are understand it, the answer is is something they have been concerned about that romney, which is why they are undecided. with undecideds, which in a poll -- in 10 states, i did two weeks ago there was 6% of the swing

state voters were undecided, a significant amount. did that 6% look at robbie last night and they missed -- at romney last night and say this is somebody who looked better some were paying attention. for those, the answer has to be yes. you are going to see a bump in the polls for romney. he cannot tell from a polling last night. i believe 67% said -- believe romney won the debate. that is a stunning number. usually, our side thinks our diet one, their side thinks their dive one, and it comes about even in the wash. it was decisive. >> quickly, explain to a group of people, where i doubt there is an undecided voters in this room, what do they look like?

who are they? >> they look like the kind of people who ask the waiter to come back because they have not decided on what they have for dinner. when you look at undecided voters, generally taken to be younger women than anything else. in this case, what i am seeing, it is an even division between men and women, there can be more independent, but somewhat conservative to moderate, but what is interesting is only 18% undecided voters and swing states say the country is going in the right direction. 7% stake is -- 70% say it is gone off the track. that is what i believe rodney is poised to pick up some of them after this performance. anybody who thinks the next debate will be the same as this

one might think they are making a mistake. obama will throw out that playbook address a big difference. >> fred, the debate was over and i thought romney did pretty good, the president seemed pretty flat. then watching the post the bait had been watching some this morning, the robbie performance went from here to hear -- the romney performance went from here to here in the analysis. obviously romney did well, but pushback a little bit on, but keep in mind, x. >> tell us how well the president did. >> don't do this.

>> that the echo thanking everyone for this event. i have done this with charlie and glen, and we would agree that charlie is someone that everyone trusts, because he plays it straight down the line. i have to deal in the reality. [laughter] i like what glen said. issue for romney going into this was likability. i do not think governor romney has had a long and to show likability, and you do not say like me because i am the a nice person. the show likability on connection by what he did last night, which is a single-minded

focus. what history in this, what the concern of the country is, so i think he did his job. for all of us in this room who probably are not undecided, i think the campaign kickoff 2009. for up lot of us who were consumers of knees and followers of politics, the conventions probably start -- this is the campaign. for those undecided voters in ohio and other places, and it is weird to say but all the ads that they are watching -- let me back it up. there are a lot of ads that are playing. it does not mean that people are watching them all the time. for the average person the campaign started last night, and we had a long time left to go. look, i think what mitt romney

did what he had to do, he made this a much more competitive general election. i think president obama -- i do not think he did as badly as the pundits are saying this morning. i think the next debates, he will probably have a different demeanor. i think the debate last night was much more important to miss -- to mitt romney and barack obama. i do not know how much this really changes the landscape, because this race is very competitive. if you look at the eight battleground states, depending on the polls, president obama is winning on all of them, but the margins are pretty close. i think the other thing that debates could do for the democrats and the president and also for the voters, for our side, too, it signals the date

is on, and you will see much more enthusiasm. people talk about the enthusiasm gap. a firm that does the polling for nbc news, within one sub group, latinos -- of au are the conspiratoria left-wing appalling -- >> barack obama had 50% with latinos, the poll is their enthusiasm was less than in 2008. >> glen, my thinking had been while it was inadequate -- mathematically possible for romney to get to 270 electoral votes without ohio, michigan, pennsylvania, that was a cushion shot in pool.

is ohio but we should be looking at more than anything else? >> that is a good question, because it is much easier for mitt romney to win the presidency if he wins ohio. is a reason -- i entered this election cycle believing that their word out three key states instead of dust florida and ohio. i would add virginia to that list, and then if they are at the top, the next half-level down is where carolina. look, clearly governor romney is stronger in florida and virginia. those are very competitive states right now. ohio is a place where he doesn't need a significant comeback, and i think fred's points are well

taken, which is for a lot of voters the election started last night. if he is gone to have a comeback in ohio, it started last night. >> fred, president obama beat senator mccain by 7%. part of it was 66% of the boats of 18- -- of the votes of 18- to ear-old voters. let's assume rough parity, but the question was as you suggested, the turnout levels among latino voters, and i would

add the young voters, where much questionable. i cannot find a polls, and if you sell a registration table registering voters thought there might be a couple people to register people and nobody in front registering. there is no pulse. is it safe to say that the seven-point margin becomes six or five or four, taking turnout down among these two groups? by necessity, this is a a bit closer. , in 2008 the president at the wind at his back. a seven-point margin for democrats is big. us expected this to be a closer race. i think, charlie, the thing we look for, with early voting, we

have metrics, so what of the things that all campaigns, every they will be looking at early voting, and half the voters in north carolina will have voted before election day. and you can track that. who they are, and more importantly, how many have voted. s, every aspect of the campaign matters. the air wars are the ones get all the coverage, but the ground war will be equally important. the other thing about the structure of the electorate is, in our polls, it was pre debate.

the president was winning independent voters by 13 points. in 2008, he defeated john mccain mike 8%. -- by 8%. i will be looking at independent numbers. in terms of minorities, yet about obama possible election in 2008 is he won on the order of 43% of the white of the. in most of the national polls, that is kind of where it is. the country is changing. in 2008 compared 3/4 of the electorate was white, which was down to the bimid high 80%'s. and a close election, nobody thought this is going to be a seven-point race. the metrics are there for him to win.

>> to me, i wanted to add on, the most stunning numbers from 2008, if you take out the 18- to 29-year-olds, mccain and obama tied. the other factor is john mccain be to barack obama 55 to 43 among white voters. george bush in 2000 beat out or 55 to 43, the same margin. how did gore and bush be essentially typie? you may not know this, but bush won that election --

[laughter] 80 years later, what was essentially a popular vote tied becomes a seven-point blowout, and that shows you how significantly america is changing. itd talks about how hard is for democrats to win it with seven points. republicans cannot worry about that. it says it but republicans do not figure out how to do much better with minority of voters, particularly latinos -- with african-americans it will be hard to get their boat for a while given that the president is black. they are going to vote for him and his party. that is understandable. republicans have to do significantly better than we are doing right now and into the teacher,. in the future we have to do

better with latino voters. they not part of the advent this where takoma we will show all of that to you in just a bit after that rally with president obama. we will take you live to sl oan lake park. the motorcade should be arriving shortly. we will take your phone call reaction afterward, part of our post-debate coverage, which will include mitch romney's rally later this afternoon. fisher bill, virginia, and we will have that at 6:45 eastern. this is the first of two events to date for president obama, and he will head to wisconsin for a rally in madison. mick romney and paul ryan, we will cover that live for you at

about 6:45. we showed you the charlie cook event from this morning. we will show you that later. all of this is available at the debate hub at c-span.org. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome lily griego. ♪

>> good morning. hello, denver, colorado. my name is lily, is great to welcome our president back to colorado. louder? can everybody hear me now? all right, i was asked to introduce the president, and i began to cry. my family as such deep roots in colorado, and our blood runs deep. my grandfathers built railroads.

my grandmother's built adobe houses. i thought to myself, my grandfathers and grandmothers dreams are coming true. my mom and my dad, a union worker appli-- taught me to bige -- to dream those big dreams but grounded in the ideas of fair play, that in the belief of being an american i can do anything if i worked hard and tried. it has not always been easy, but i am leaving those values and fulfilling those dreams and passing that work ethic on to my son. raised him alone on a single income. i spent years working multiple jobs, that that it took me almost 20 years degree, my bachelor's, and then i went

back and worked hard and it took forever, one class at a time, but i got my master's degree, too. but thanks to all the hard work, today i met proud member of the middle class. just like my grandparents reamed. now i am a civil servant working for one of the largest county governments in colorado. i also had a part-time job catering, and that helps the pay off my student that and put my son through college, too. luckily for me, he is its wont be able to get that degree, partially from scholarships from that union job that my dad worked for, from pell grants, but thanks to paul president obama, and lastly because it got scholarships as a metropolitan state university mascot.

and because of president obama, he will climb higher than i ever did, which is every parent's dream. the president is putting college within reach of more students through pell grants, a student loans, and college tax credits. "obamacare" skit can stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26. our daughters and featured daughters at the best shot ever of earning equal pay for equal work. on issue after issue, president obama is moving us forward. and the granddaughter of railroad workers and the daughter of a union family, a middle-class month, came a latina, i am doing everything to fight for him.

any extra time i have i have been making phone calls, knocking on doors, and we have just five days left to get everybody registered to vote. here in colorado, you can register online, asked for and mail-in ballots, and said it in in a matter of minutes. it does not get any easier, so register, tell your friends and neighbors to register, and provokevote. in spanish we say -- [speaking spanish] that means tell me with whom you ball, and i will tell you who you are. colorado, we know with whom we

walk. our president. it is because he bwalks for us, cuts he fights for us, and he speaks to who we are because we are america. so, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to our president, barack obama.

colorado.lo, hon it is good to be back in denver -- it is good to be back in denver. veuld everybody please gippe ound ofgreat run the p applause for that great introduction? we had your great senators in the house, you're great terrific members of congress are here, which led the campaign could and most chairs, importantly we have all of you cannot even though you had to give them up a little quicker than expected. i love you back.

now, the reason i was in denver is to see all of you, and it is always pretty, but we also had our first debate last night. and when i got on to the stage, i bet this very spirited fellow who claimed to be mitt romney. but it could not have been mitt romney because the real mitt romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts to pay for the wealthy. the fellow on stage last night said he did not know anything about that. the real mitt romney said we do not need any more teachers in

our classrooms. -- vote. boo but the fellow on stage last night, he loves her teachers, cannot get enough of them. the mitt romney we all know invested in companies that were called pioneers of the outsourcing jobs to other countries. but got onstage last night, he said that he does not even know that there are such laws encouraged outsourcing. he has never heard of them. never heard of them. never heard of tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas. e, must needs true s a new accounting.

we know for sure it was not the real big trouble because he seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant. the man onstage last night does not want to be held accountable -- their real bit romney's decisions and what he has been saying for the last year. we know we did not want what he has been saying for the last year. governor romney made the answer on his positions, but if you want to be president, you owe the american people the truth. here is the truth -- governor robbie cannot pay for his $5 trillion paks plant -- governor romney not pay for his bike trillion dollars tax plan.

we cannot afford another round -- budget pass much in budget busting tax cuts for the wealthy. we cannot afford to world backer to the license on wall street or on big oil or insurance companies. but cannot afford to double down on the same economic policies that got us into this mess. that is not a plant a great job , crowed the economy, that does not change, that is a relapse. we do not want to go back there. where not going back. we are going forward. i have a different deal about how we create jobs. this country does not succeed when we only see the rich getting richer. we succeed with the middle-

class gets bigger. we grow our economy not from the top down, but from the middle out. we do not believe that anybody is entitled to success, but we believe an opportunity. we believe in a country where hard work pays off and where responsibility is waterboarded and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody plays by the same rules. at its pickups -- that is what the country is for. that is why i am running for president of the and i the states, and that is why i wanted your vote. -- i want your vote. >> four more years! >> what i talked about last not

was a new economic patriotism, a patriotism writed in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong, but thriving middle-class. that means we export more products and be outsourced and fewer jobs. of the last three years we came together to reinvent a dying auto industry that is back on top of the world. we have created more than 500,000 new manufacturing drops, so now you have a choice. we closed adding tax breaks, or we could or companies that create jobs in the united states. that is what we are looking for. we can help beat back the sea and small business doubled their exports and create b8 million manufacturing jobs. i want to control or energy. after 30 years of inaction, we have raised killed standards set

by the middle of the next decade your cars and trucks will be going twice as far on a gallon of gas. we have doubled the amount of renewable energy and we generate from sources like wind and solar. thousands of americans have jobs building wind turbines and long-lasting batteries. yet the state's today is less dependent on foreign oil than any time in the last two decades. now you have a choice between a plant that reverses this progress or one that builds on it. my opponent said he refuses to close a loophole that gives big " companies $4 billion in tax subsidies every year. we have a better plan that we keep investing in wind, solar, and clean coal, where scientists -- construction

workers are retrofitting homes so they waste s energy, and we can develop a supply of natural gas that treats hundreds of thousands of jobs and we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020. that will be good for our economy, and barbara, for colorado, that will be good for america, and that is what we're fighting for. that is why i am running for a second term as president of the united states. i want to give more the chance to get the skills they need to compete. i talked about how education was the gateway of opportunity for me and so many of you. it is the gateway for a middle- class life. today students are paying less for college because we took on a

system that was wasting taxpayer dollars on bankers and lenders. now you have aches with. we could cut education, we could decide that in the united states ms. trout should have their dream deferred because of an overcrowded classroom, no company should have to look for workers in china because they could not find any but the right skills here. we will recruit 100,000 new teachers and we will improve early childhood education and create 2 million more slots in community colleges so workers can get trained for the jobs that are out there right now, and we will continue to do everything we need to do to cut the growth of tuition costs because every young person in america should have the opportunity to go to college without being loaded up with hundreds of -- tens of thousands

of dollars worth of debt. i had a plant that will cut the deficit by $4 trillion q&a mix of spending cuts and higher taxes on wealthiest americans. i have already work with republicans to work -- to cut back trillion of dollars of spending, and i'd want to do more. i want to reform the tax code submit is a blur and fair, so that incomes over $250,000 will go back to the rate when bill clinton was president, that created the biggest surplus in history. last night romney ruled out raising a daughter of taxes on everybody, closing out the loophole that is a company's $4 billion in corporate welfare, refused to acknowledge the

loophole that gives tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and when he was asked what he would be to cut the deficit said he would eliminate funding for public television. that was his answer. thank goodness somebody is finally getting tough on big bird. it is about time. we did not know that big bird was driving the federal deficit, but that is what we heard last night. how about that? elmo, too? look, the fact is governor romney's that does not add up.

i had to spend time last night trying to pin it down. only way to pay for $5 trillion in the tax cuts and $2 trillion in the defense spending that the military says it does not need is by asking the middle-class to pay more. i refuse to do that. i refuse to ask middle-class families to give up their deductions for owning a home or raising their kids just to pay for another million shares -- millionaire's tax cut. just to pay for more tax cuts that we cannot afford. i will never turn medicare into a voucher.

governor romney double down on the proposal last night and he is wrong. no american should have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies. they should retire with the dignity they have earned. we will perform and strengthen medicare for a long haul, but reducing the cost of health care, not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more, and we will keep promise of social security by taking the toponsible steps strengthen it. we will have a chance to talk about what is going on overseas, because our prosperity at home is linked to what happens abroad. four years ago, i promised to end the war in iraq, and i did. i said we would wind down the war in afghanistan in a responsible way, and we are.

while a new tower is rising about the new york skyline, osama bin laden is dead. we still face serious threats and run the world. we saw that a few weeks ago, and that is a why we will sustain the strongest military the world has ever known, and when troops take off the reforms, we will serve them as well as they have served us, because nobody should have to fight for a job when they come home or a roof over their heads if they have fought for our country. they have earned our respect and our honor. that is a commitment by make. -- i make. will be interesting to see mitt romney will say about foreign

policy when we meet next, because he said it was tragic to end the war in iraq. he will not tell us, he will end the war in afghanistan. and i will use the money we are no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work. rebuilding our roads and bridges and schools and runways and broadband lines, because after a decade of war, it is time to do some nation-building at home and do some bad -- and put some folks to work at home. this is the choice we now face. this is what the election comes down to. over and over we had been told by our opponents that's its government cannot do everything, it should do almost nothing, if you cannot afford health insurance, we hope you do not get sick. a company is releasing toxic

pollution into the air, that is the price of progress. you cannot go to college, just borrowed money from your parents. as i described last night that is not who we are, not what this country is about. in america we believe we are in this together. we understand america is not about what can be done for us, do asabout what begwe can one nation, and you understand that. or the reason there is a teacher in pueblo? who can buy. " with new tax credits. you have made that happen. you are the reason a woman outside during the can get

treatment she needs to be cancer. now that there are affordable plans to cover pre-existing conditions, we can do that. you made that happen. you are the reason thousands of students at colleges have more help paying for college this year. that happened because of you. you are the reason a young immigrant who grew up here and but the school here and pledges of allegiance to our flag will no longer be deported from the only country she has ever called home. you are the reason an outstanding soldier, will not be kicked out the military because of who he loves. you are the reason why thousands of families have been able to say to their loved ones who served us so greatly, welcome home, welcome home. welcome home. if you turn away now, you buy into the cynicism that's of how the change we fought for is not possible, then change will not

happen. you'd give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, that other folks still the boy. lobbyists and special interests and the people who are riding the $10 million checks and all this bid will end up dominating the airwaves, and that is how things and ordinary folks get left out. all the folks who are trying to make it harder for you to vote, the folks in washington who think they should control that health-care cash choices that women should be making for themselves. only you can make change happen. only you have the power to move us forward. from the day we began this campaign, i always said real change takes time, it takes more than one term. you cannot do it if it had a

president who writes off at the nation before he even takes office. you know, in 200847% of the country did not vote for me. on the night of the election i said all those americans, i may not have won more votes, i have heard your voice is, i need your help, and i will be your president, too. that is all i want to say to denver. what i want to say to that great state of colorado, i do not know how many of you will be with me this time around, but i will plead with you no matter what, because i'm not fighting a two create democratic or republican, jobs, i am fighting to create american jobs. i am not fighting to improve schools. red states or blue states, i am fighting to improve schools in

the united skates. -- states. they are american dow is the blunt all of us, and if we reclaim them now, and rally around a new sense of economic patriotism, a sense of how we build an economy from the middle out a giveback ladders of opportunity to everyone, we will strengthen the middle class, we will keep moving forward. i believe politics is not as divided as it seems sometimes. i believe in you. i ask you to keep on believing in me. i am asking for your vote, and yet you are willing to stand with me and work with me, we are going to win denver again, we are running to win colorado again, we will finish what we start. when or where might it is why the world -- we will remind the

world why the united states is the greatest country on earth. got less you -- god bless you and god bless the united states of america. ♪ ♪